Today we'll dissect two related myths that have great currency. The time has come to clarify matters for good.

Myth: i.) The title, the 'throne of St Thomas', was unheard of before the 1970s, when it suddenly made its appearance in Kalpanas issued by Devalokam.
Fact:i.) In the very first letter issued by Geevarghese Bava to HH Patriarch Yakub III after the 1958 unity, he used the title of the Catholicos seated on the 'Throne of the East of Apostle St.Thomas'. (source: the Supreme Court majority judgement of 1995) But let's begin at the beginning. In this case, a chronological approach* listing instances where the 'throne of St Thomas' was referred to, would clarify things: a.) 1st Century CE. From the Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 19, and Verses 27-28: "Then answered Peter and said unto him, behold, we have foresaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

St Thomas, being one of the 12 apostles, had his own throne according to the scheme of Our Lord Jesus.

b.) Gregorius Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE). In the Hoodoyo Canon (Book of Directions, Paris, 1898), Chapter VII, Section I, Bar Hebraeus uses the term throne with respect to Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Bishops alike. He also refers to the ceremony of "enthronement" for bishops. Additionally, Bar Hebraeus regards St Thomas as the first bishop of the East. Implication: Even bishops had thrones, and since St Thomas was regarded as the first bishop of the East, the use of the term 'Throne of St Thomas' is appropriate.

c.) 1905 (most likely). The judgement of the Royal Court of Appeal, Cochin, has used the expression, "Melpattakaran of the throne in Malayalam". (probably the Arthat case.)

d.) Early 20th Century. In the book, The Indian Church of St Thomas, by E M Philip (second edition, page 253), the following reference is found: "He upheld the contention of Mar Thomas Athanasius, and found that the Syrian Church was independent of the Patriarch of Antioch. Of course, the majority judgment prevailed, and Mar Dionysius V was established on the throne of St. Thomas."

It must be mentioned that E M Philip is an iconic figure for the Patriarchal faction.

e.) 1912. From the Bull issued on September 17, 1912**, by HH Abdul Masih Patriarch from St Mary's Church, Niranam: "...By virtue of the order of the office of the Shephard, entrusted to Simon Peter by our Lord Jesus Messiah, we are prompted to perpetuate for you Catholicos or Mapriyana to serve all spiritual requirements that are necessary for the conduct of the order of the holy true Church in accordance with its faith.... With Geevarghese Mar Dionysius Metropolitan, who is the head of the Metropolitans in Malankara and with other Metropolitans, Ascetics, Deacons and a large number of faithfuls, we have ordained in person our spiritually beloved Evanios in the name of Baselius as Mapriyana, i.e., as the Catholicos on the Throne of St.Thomas in the East, i.e., in India and other places, at the St.Mary's Church, Niranam on Sunday, 2nd Kanni, 1912 A.D. as per your request."

f.) 1934. Reference to the throne of St Thomas was made in the notice issued to vicars, priests, trustees, and parishioners to attend the MD Seminary meeting of the Malankara Association that year. This notice was presented as exhibit A-4 to the honourable Supreme Court of India during the course of the hearing leading to the 1995 judgement.

g.) 1958. After the Supreme Court gave its momentous judgement on September 12, 1958, rejecting the contention of the patriarchal faction that the followers of Vattasseril Thirumeni had become heretics, the efforts towards unity gathered pace. On December 9, 1958, Patriarch HH Yakub III issued a Bull to Geevarghese Bava, which among other things, included the following words: "..We also were longing for peace in the Malankara Church and the unity of the organs of the one body of the Church. We have expressed this desire of ours very clearly in the apostolic proclamation (reference is to the proclamation dated November 11, 1957) we issued to you soon after our ascension on the Throne. This desire of ours gained strength with all vigor day by day without in any way slackened and the Lord God has been pleased to end the dissension through us. Glory be to him. To bring forth the peace in the Malankara Church we hereby accept with pleasure Mar Baselious Gheevarghese as Catholicose. Therefore we send our hearty greetings"

Following many rounds of negotiations, the reply to this letter was exchanged with the Patriarchal representative Mar Julius Elias on December 16, 1958, at the Old Seminary in Kottayam by Geevarghese Bava. This letter (referred to earlier), presented as exhibit A 20 to the honourable Supreme Court of India, found the Catholicos describing himself in the following words: "the meek Baselious Catholicos named as Geevarghese II seated on the Throne of the East of Apostle St.Thomas". He went on to add, "We, for the sake of peace, in the Church, are pleased to accept Moran Mar Ignatius Yakub III as Patriarch of Antioch subject to the constitution passed by the Malankara Syrian Christian Association and now in force."

The Patriarch's reply to the letter came four months later dated April 8, 1959, (exhibit A 23 with the Supreme Court), wherein he made clear his displeasure: "...Your use of the expression holiness with your name is not right. This expression can be used only by the Patriarchs. Your assertion that you are sitting at the Throne of St.Thomas is unacceptable. No one has ever heard of St.Thomas establishing a Throne. Similarly your assumption that yours is the Church of the East and that you are Catholicos of the East is equally untrue and unwarranted..."

From all the above, we can see that the term 'Throne of St Thomas' has a long and illustrious history and was not suddenly sprung from Devalokam in the 1970s. As early as 1959, the Patriarch had objected to its usage. This gives the lie to the urban legend that the reference to the throne of St Thomas was unheard of before the 1970s.

Another Jacobite urban legend that has now acquired the sanctity of truth through constant repetition is that the honourable Supreme Court of India in its 1995 majority judgement said that the title 'Throne of St Thomas' should be understood merely as an honorific. This is another instance of spin, and I intent to use this opportunity to expose it

Myth: ii.) The Supreme Court of India in its 1995 majority judgement said that the title 'Throne of St Thomas' should be understood merely as an honorific.
Fact:ii.)The fact that titles like 'His Holiness', 'Throne of St Thomas' etc. are honorifics was not in debate anywhere. That they were so was stated by Geevarghese Bava himself in one of his letters to HH Patriarch Yakub III which was presented as exhibit A 24*** before the honourable Supreme Court. For those who want more proof, I am quoting the relevant references: "...The propriety of using the title 'His Holiness' along with my name is questioned. Now I must bring to your notice the fact that customarily the same epithets have been attached to the Patriarch and the Catholicos in our church as evinced by our Holy writs and other books..." Here Geevarghese Bava describes the title 'His Holiness' as a mere epithet. He states further, "...The Throne of St. Thomas: Your Holiness says 'It is never heard that St. Thomas established a throne of the Catholicos or the Mapriano, either in India or in any other place'. I must, without presumption, ask your Holiness, whether for that matter, any apostle has established a throne anywhere. Is it not that such honours have been connected with them in latter times..." Here Geevarghese Bava describes the title 'Throne of St Thomas' as an honour or honorific. Therefore, we didn't want the Supreme Court to confirm that the titles are mere honorifics. We ourselves told the court it is so. Instead, what we expected the honourable court to do was to pronounce a verdict on whether it was appropriate for the Catholicos to use such titles. And I am happy to state here that the court ruled in our favour.

Why Did The Supreme Uphold The Usage Of Titles By The Catholicos?

Justice B P Jeevan Reddy who wrote the majority judgement, delivered his verdict through five fundamental facts (findings) and 11 summary findings. I will cite the relevant summary finding, and use quotes from the related fundamental fact to provide clarity.

Here's the relevant summary finding no.7 in full:

"Though the Patriarch raised objections to the honorifics (e.g., use of 'Holiness' with the name of the Catholicos and his assertion that he was seated 'on the Throne of St.Thomas in the East') and to the qualification added by the Catholicos in his Kalpana Ex.A.20 (i.e., accepting the Patriarch subject to the Constitution), the Patriarch must be deemed to have given up and abandoned all those objections when he came to India, pursuant to a canonical invitation from the Malankara Synod and installed and consecrated the new Catholicos on May 22, 1964. It is also worth noticing that a day before such installation/consecration, the Patriarch took care to have the territorial jurisdiction of Catholicate duly defined and de-limited by excluding certain areas in the Middle-East from the jurisdiction of the Catholicos."

Here it is in black and white. What the Supreme Court has said is that though the Patriarch raised objection to the use of the honorifics, his actions indicate that he had given up and abandoned all those objections to the use of the titles 'Holiness' and 'seated on the Throne of St Thomas' with respect to the Catholicos.

What does the Supreme Court mean by its reference to the demarcation of jurisdiction? Let me explain. HH Ougen I was consecrated as the new Catholicos by HH Patriarch Yakub III on May 22, 1964. A day before the consecration, the patriarch demanded that the territorial jurisdiction of the Catholicos should be demarcated. Accordingly, the then united synod of Malankara Sabha resolved the following:

"Hereafter the jurisdiction of the said see shall not be extended to the Arabian countries or Persia and that the see includes only eastern countries situated on the east of them. But H.H., the Patriarch shall agree to continue the present system of sending priests to the Arabian gulf countries from Malankara for ministering to the spiritual needs of the Malayali Parishioners as long as Malayalis stay there." (source: Justice Jeevan Reddy's judgement)

Why did the Patriarch demand the demarcation? Well, when HH Patriarch Abdul Masih consecrated a Catholicos for Malankara in 1912, it was construed as the transfer of the Maphryanite from Tikrit to Malankara. Based on this, the possibility existed that the Malankara Catholicos could at some point raise a claim to all the ancient territories in the Middle-East administered by the Iraqi Maphriyanite. For instance, areas under the present Syriac archbishophorics of Baghdad and Mosul were once under the Maphryanite. Therefore, HH Yakub III, in order to prevent the possibility of such a claim, demanded the demarcation. Is this my imagination running riot or does it find support from the Supreme Court's judgement? Let's turn to the fundamental facts listed by Justice Jeevan Reddy. Here's a relevant quote from fundamental fact number c.):

"As stated supra, the Patriarch came to India pursuant to a canonical invitation from the Malankara Synod and consecrated and duly installed the new Catholicos (Mar Ougen), who was elected by the Malankara Association in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. Before he did so, the Patriarch took care to see that the respective territorial jurisdictions of the Patriarchate and the Catholicate are duly defined and demarcated. The Middle East which was supposed to be hitherto under the jurisdiction of the Catholicos was excluded from his jurisdiction confining his authority to India and East alone."

Please notice the reference to "the Middle East which was supposed to be hitherto under the jurisdiction of the Catholicos was excluded from his jurisdiction..."

Okay, this proves why the Patriarch demanded the demarcation of jurisdiction. But why did the Supreme Court link this event to the usage of titles? Well, what the Supreme Court seems to imply is that if the Patriarch was so fundamentally opposed to use of the honorifics, he could have raised the condition that he wouldn't consecrate HH Ougen unless the Malankara Sabha gave up in writing that it was ready to abandon the use of such titles. After all, did he not raise the demarcation issue as a condition? In the same manner why didn't he raise the honorifics issue? The Supreme Court seems to be asking. Therefore, the court concluded that the Patriarch's actions indicate that "he must be deemed to have given up and abandoned all those objections when he came to India". It seems the Patriarch himself cared more about territory demarcation than about the use of such titles. It's only our Jacobite brothers who seem to be bothered. I hope they will review their position.

Notes:
* Notes: In the chronology list, a, b, c, d, f are obtained from the minority judgement of Justice R M Sahai. E and g are from the majority judgement. Three judges - Justices B P Jeevan Reddy, S C Sen and R M Sahai - heard the suit. The same documents were made available to all three with the same numberings. Justice Sahai in his judgement has referred to the documents in detail. I found in them a treasure trove of information and have cited them. Justice Sahai's rulings are given vide seven findings and three declarations. Since it's the minority ruling, I have not used any of them.
** During the course of the hearing, the patriarchal faction alleged that this letter (exhibit A 13) was not authentic, and claimed that HH Abdul Masih had issued only one letter (exhibit A 14). The IOC claimed that without the first letter, there couldn't have been the second, since one logically follows the other. The Supreme Court in its majority view agreed with our contention. I quote from the relevant fundamental fact (finding): "Now what do the above facts signify? Do they not show that Patriarch had, by 1964, recognised and accepted the revival of the Catholicate, A.13, A.14 and the 1934 Constitution? Do they not show that the Patriarch had also given up his objections to the use of the words 'seated on the throne of St.Thomas in the East' and to the "qualification" added by Catholicos in A.20? We think, they do." The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the actions of the Patriarch showed that he had accepted both A 13 (first letter) and A14 (second letter) of HH Abdul Masih. Let nobody claim otherwise.
*** Quoted in Justice R M Sahai's verdict.

Next: Shocking revelations by two historians